In re Carter

Court of Claims of Ohio

March 16, 2016

IN RE: DANNIELLE CARTER DANNIELLE CARTER Applicant

Sent
to S.C. Reporter 5/23/17

DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE

DANIEL
R. BORCHERT, Magistrate Judge

{¶1}
On March 23, 2015, applicant, Dannielle Carter, filed a
compensation application as the result of an assault which
occurred on January 27, 2015. On June 16, 2015, the Attorney
General issued a finding of fact and decision finding
applicant met the necessary jurisdictional requirements to
qualify as a victim of criminally injurious conduct pursuant
to R.C. 2743.51(C)(1). Applicant was granted an award in the
amount of $325.08, of which $200.00 represented clothing
destroyed at the time of medical treatment, $25.08
represented mileage expenses, and $100.00 represented the
cost of boots held by the police as evidence. Applicant's
claims for family counseling expenses, replacement services
loss, work loss, crime scene clean up, and additional
evidence replacement expense were denied.

{¶2}
On June 24, 2015, applicant submitted a request for
reconsideration. Applicant asserted claims for liability to
Hertz Rental Car, since damage was sustained by the vehicle
at the time of the criminal incident and additional evidence
replacement loss. Applicant submitted a letter received from
The Hertz Corporation requesting $750.04, to cover the full
costs of damage received to its vehicle after receiving a
check from applicant's insurance carrier.

{¶3}
On August 21, 2015, the Attorney General rendered a Final
Decision granting applicant an additional award in the amount
of $100.00 which represented evidence replacement loss, the
boots, which were not paid in the initial award. However,
applicant's claim for reimbursement of money owed to
Hertz was denied since this was a property loss not
compensable under Ohio's Victims of Crime Compensation
Program. The Attorney General also denied reimbursement for
two coats, keys, and miscellaneous items which applicant
asserted were stolen from the vehicle at the time of the
assault.

{¶4}
On September 17, 2015, applicant filed a notice of appeal
from the August 21, 2015 Final Decision of the Attorney
General. Hence, a hearing was held before this magistrate on
January 19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

{¶5}
Applicant, Dannielle Carter appeared via telephone while her
attorney, Matthew Shaughnessy appeared in person. The state
of Ohio was represented by Assistant Attorneys General Robin
Matthews and Melissa Montgomery.

{¶6}
Preliminarily, applicant sought to introduce into evidence an
article which appeared on Cleveland.com concerning the
procedures the Cleveland Police Department utilizes when they
tow a vehicle. The Attorney General objected to the
introduction of this article into evidence since it was in
violation of this court's order that all documents be
submitted three days prior to the hearing. Furthermore, the
article is dated 2008 and there is no indication that the
procedures mentioned in the article are the same today. Based
upon relevance applicant's motion was denied.

{¶7}
Applicant made an oral motion for applicant's ex-husband
Dontez Carter to testify. The oral motion was granted.
Applicant also withdrew her appeal on all issues but that of
evidence replacement loss.

{¶8}
Applicant stated the only issue on appeal concerns the
property items contained in the vehicle which were not
returned to her. The Attorney General countered that his
decision should be affirmed since the items in question were
not taken by the Cleveland Police Department as evidence.

{¶9}
Dannielle Carter was called to testify via telephone.
Initially, Ms. Carter described the events surrounding the
shooting and hospitalization. Ms. Carter stated she never saw
the car, where the shooting took place, again, since it was
impounded as the crime scene. When she attempted to regain
her property that was in the vehicle she was unsuccessful.
She believed she was being given the run around.

{¶10}
Ms. Carter stated the following items were in the vehicle:
her coat, a GPS, her house keys, $50.00 worth of change, and
her ex-husband Dontez Carter's coat.

{¶11}
Upon cross-examination, she acknowledged she was driven to
the hospital in the rental car by Dontez Carter. However, she
was not present when police took control of the vehicle and
had no knowledge of what could have happened to her property
prior to the police's arrival. Whereupon, Ms.
Carter's testimony was concluded.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{&para;12}
Dontez Carter was called to testify via telephone. Mr. Carter
related the events surrounding the shooting and his
transportation of Dannielle Carter to the hospital. Upon
arrival at the hospital, the police showed up and towed the
car. Initially, the Metro Police (Hospital's personnel)
secured the vehicle until Cleveland Police arrived. Mr.
Carter pulled the vehicle in front of the emergency
department entrance and did not drive the vehicle again. Mr.
Carter related ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.